IBM is looking to develop a greenhouse
gas meter capable of measuring output by industries and devices.
It is working with Enterprise Information Management and Evergreen
Energy on the project, which is dubbed GreenCert. The project
integrates IBM Websphere tools and applications with a central engine
from C-Lock (a subsidiary of Evergreen Energy).

The resulting
program uses the varied logistic information it gathers from the
Websphere tools to create a snapshot of the company's current usage
and calculate an approximate figure for usage.

The program
promises financial rewards as companies who use the system can make
improvements to their infrastructure and then use the tool to take an
"after" picture which will provide companies with proof of
their cuts which can be used to obtain carbon credits to be traded on
the carbon market.

IBM will release the final version of the
software in 2008, but for now it is available
for beta test from C-Lock is beta testing it.

As the
software seems very vague and abstract, and IBM is keeping much of
the details under wraps; it is hard to say how serious IBM is about
this project as a business venture. IBM insists that companies
will see real financial benefits by utilizing this program,
though.

The problem is, and environmentalists don't seem to be aware of it, that companies do this routinely. They observe their cost structure, pay economists good money to create internal projections as to where all those costs could be going in the future, and then determin the most profitable plan forward. They try, at least. Do you really think oil companies, for example, aren't aware of the problem? No, they know it, they're exploring like nuts to replace reserves. Most have internal projections, it's said, of $65 / barrel in the long run, and base their operations based on that, though some operate on the assumption of higher long run prices. Apache, for example, if I recall.

Public companies especially have shareholders to report to every 3 months, in detail. Performance is expected, and those who don't perform more often then not end up with family matters to take care of or shaken up due to shareholder activism, such as from people like Carl Icahn. If it were the most efficient use of resources investing in "green" technology, it would be done. In some instances it does happen; you're right, saving energy generally makes sense, doesn't matter where its sourced from. Oil, cow gas, it all costs money.

This.. whatever this monitor is, I suppose, could help spot inefficiency; if a process creates CO2, it probably is eating energy, and.. maybe they hadn't noticed it previously. That's about all I can say about it.

Environmentalists don't have to push or prod business to do things to save money; they've been at this game since long before you or I were born and long before anybody pondered global warming. I therefore always detect either naivety or ulterior motives (such as forced "efficiency" spending) in such arguments.

"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer